What Would The Movie Business Be Like If The MPAA Succeeded In Killing The VCR?

from the a-thought-exercise dept

As the fight over the E-PARASITE/SOPA bill continues, it's worth taking a step back, and conducting a short thought exercise:

What would the movie business be like today, if the MPAA had succeeded in banning the VCR?

Remember, in the Betamax case, the studios sought to kill off the VCR, leading to the famous quote from MPAA boss Jack Valenti:

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

And, Valenti and the MPAA came very close to convincing the courts, who only granted immunity for those offerings with substantial non-infringing uses by the narrowest of margins (though court initially decided to side with the MPAA before changing its mind). Unfortunately, while SOPA seeks to couch its broad upending of the legal and technical frameworks of much of the internet in the claim that this is "just" about "stopping pirate sites," twenty years ago, this case was about "just" stopping this "pirate technology."

But what happened after that? Once the court finally declared VCRs legal, suddenly the movie industry exploded. With this new method of video distribution, the entire movie business was reinvented in a good way. It meant no longer just viewing in the theaters. An entire new category soon took over: home movie viewing (and renting). Before long, the home video market actually overtook the theater. And, these days, ironically, what do you hear the MPAA whining about the most? That online sharing is decimating the home video market. Of course, if the MPAA had had its way 20 years ago, we wouldn't even have a home video market.

So the thought exercise of where the movie industry would be today, if the VCR had been declared dedicated to infringing purposes twenty years ago, seems particularly relevant. That's doubly true, seeing as the E-PARASITE bill effectively looks to overturn the court's Betamax decision, and open up the floodgates for the MPAA (and others) to cut off all funding from any new technology it believes is "dedicated to the theft of US property" under the exceedingly broad definitions in the bill.

Take a moment, and consider where the movie business would be today, if the VCR never existed. And think about just how wrong the MPAA was then to freak out about a technology that later saved it. And consider that perhaps we should wait before changing the law to allow the MPAA to kill off the next "VCR" in the digital age.

Mike, I think that if the courts could see then what they see now, it is likely the ruling would have gone the MPAA's way. The VCR itself didn't lead to massive infringement (but certainly to some) but technologies that have piggybacked on the ruling (Tivo, as an example) have significantly changed both the way consumers view TV and movies, and the business models the support them.

Almost everyone I know uses DVRs in some manner, and the most common popular feature is the "skip ahead 30 seconds" button. This has a very great impact on how commercial programming is paid for in the long run, because DVR viewers are just not following the same patterns as classical live TV viewers.

I think that seeing this alone, the courts would have likely ruled the other way, because there is clearly harm done, and people are clearly using the technology to avoid the parts that pay for the content to be created.

It really does seem like the AA's are suicidal doesn't it? How many other industries spend so much time and money trying to convince politicians that their customers are thief's? What other industries spend so much time and money trying to destroy the very technologies that make them billions?

It's like hanging off a cliff with a rope, then chewing on the rope because it's tasty and your hungry. Sure, you may get a full belly, but at what cost? Why not just climb up the rope and order a pizza? Damn.. Sorry about the food analogy...it's lunch time and I'm starving...

Re:

Are you suggesting that if a new technology changes they way an existing business must operate to be successful that it is inherently wrong and should be made illegal? Please tell me you're not suggesting that.

Re:

Be careful Mike, this one has me heading back toward the fence. From the way I see it after reading the post, it would seem as if the two situations aren't as similar as they seem on the surface.

The VCR would be today's internet connected device, and the 'rogue site' would be like a video store that was providing it's customers access to pirated tapes. No one is talking about branding computers & smart phones et al as "dedicated to infringement" (I'm sure some want to, but that's not what the bill is talking about)...just some of the sites people may try to visit. Seems to me the argument should really be about due process, no?

I'm sure I've got this all twisted up in my head, and even more sure the folks 'round here will set me straight...so I'll look forward to that. :)

Re: Re:

No, but I think that if the courts had realizes that there would be so many infringing uses based on their judgement at the time, they likely would have ruled the other way. Mike has already pointed out that the decision at the time was very narrow, and I can only imagine that the current situations we find ourselves in would have made it very easy for the courts to rule against the technology.

"Once the court finally declared VCRs legal, suddenly the movie industry exploded. With this new method of video distribution, the entire movie business was reinvented in a good way."

That is why I say give them the laws they want. In the end it removes the distribution channels they will need to survive. It wakes up the multi trillion dollar tech industry. And it pisses off half the worlds population.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Specfically made illegal? I am not sure how you would do it. But I will say that the advertisements are the part of the deal you make in order to get the free content. Bypassing them, blocking them, or skipping them to some extent breaks that agreement.

Like anything, it's okay if a small number of people are doing it. But at a point where a significant part of the viewership is doing it, you create an economic problem. The short term positive of no having to see the commercials might be wiped out by the long term failure of the very business model that brings you that content to start with.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

"The VCR itself didn't lead to massive infringement"
Never been to NY 10-15 years ago huh?
Dont remember all the pie-rated videos on the street vendors tables huh?

"commercial programming is paid for"
OHHHHHHH NOOOOOOO!!!! So I only see 4990 commercials instead of the 5000 or so. Ouch what are they gonna do? I skipped 5-10 commericials. Gouge out my eyes and throw me in jail.

"skip ahead 30 seconds" button. This has a very great impact"
Because VCR's didnt have fast forward buttons. What a tool.

Re: Re: Re:

"But at a point where a significant part of the viewership is doing it, you create an economic problem."

Lets be fair, they've always done that. The problem is, until recently the ones selling the ad space were able to more easy fool the ones buying the space. These days its a little more difficult (competition notwithstanding)

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

"The short term positive of no having to see the commercials might be wiped out by the long term failure of the very business model that brings you that content to start with."

I see what you're saying and can get the viewpoint...but the problem is that in other industries the solution is NOT to just make the technological progress illegal. I'll give you an example:

I work for an MSP (Manages Services Provider). By utilizing some pretty slick management and automation technology, we're able to support a large number of users/companies with a relatively small bullpen of engineers. Now, I can imagine there are lots of folks who hate us. Individual engineers we might put out of a job, for instance. Or take a company that does IT Tech staffing. They must HATE us since companies are using our service instead of theirs to find an internal tech.

That said, if the Association of Staffing Agencies or whatever came out and tried to outlaw Kaseya Software just because their business was threatened by how we use the technology, they'd be laughed out of every congressional district in the nation. They have to adapt, change a little or a lot to fit the marketplace. For instance, one of those staffing companies now works directly WITH us, not only to staff US with engineers, but to refer businesses to us for a finders fee as well. That's how it's done.

So, the answer is not whining that DVRs allow people to skip commercials. The answer is to adapt so that is actually a benefit, not a hinderance....

Re: Re: Re:

I don't disagree that it does cause an economic (a.k.a. business) problem. But, that's the businesses' problem. If you find that the way you're making money isn't working anymore then try something else, or go out of business. Of course, there's the third option: get the government to protect your business model with new laws. That's a popular choice lately it seems.

Re: Re: Re:

No the deal is they try to show ads and I watch them if I want too, they then lie to the people who they sold the ads and the schmucks don't even get to see the product before it airs, they have to get it all on the faith.

Anyone who tried to buy ad space on TV or radio is told a lot of BS to be impressed.

Now what I want to see is what those stupid people would do if the liability was on them, how about make labels responsible for every singer or every customers of theirs so if anyone is found doing something wrong listening to music the labels should be liable, if any musicians kill, maime or do something wrong studios and labels should be liable after all they are using criminallity to make a profit and that is uneceptable those criminals should not be forgiven but thrown in jail right?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

The VCR would be today's internet connected device, and the 'rogue site' would be like a video store that was providing it's customers access to pirated tapes.

Close, but not quite. I'd change it to:

The VCR would be today's internet connected device, and the 'rogue site' would be like the Yellow Pages which listed the address of a flea market where some of the tapes sold by some of the vendors were pirated copies.

(With the implication being that the flea market should be shut down if it doesn't have the resources to affirmatively comb through the inventories of the millions of merchants that set up tables there daily, and that the Yellow Pages are criminally complicit if they don't de-list the flea market from their directory immediately.)

Re:

I'd like to commission an editorial cartoon

Unfortunately I can't draw for shit, but It'd look something like this:

A man, clearly crazed and sporting army surplus gear, labelled "MPAA & RIAA" points a bazooka labelled "Compliant Congress" with a shell labelled "SOPA" at a mosquito labelled "copyright infringement". Mosquito is in amongst flowers labelled "free speech", "culture" and "open exchange of ideas", all of these growing out of the ground, labelled internet.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

It occurs to me that the modern contest distribution business is like the Titanic. They didn't see the Internet iceberg until it was too late, and now that they have they are so bloated with entrenched interests, contracts, and committees that they can't steer the ship quickly enough to avoid it even if they wanted to. The strategy they've taken at this point have everyone stand on the deck and pray for rescue while the richest guys get to the lifeboats before the ships goes down.

Re: I'd like to commission an editorial cartoon

Re:

Almost everyone I know uses DVRs in some manner, and the most common popular feature is the "skip ahead 30 seconds" button. This has a very great impact on how commercial programming is paid for in the long run, because DVR viewers are just not following the same patterns as classical live TV viewers.

You do realize that studies have shown DVR owners both watch *more* TV than non-DVR owners *and* that they *watch and retain more commercials*, right?

Sometimes, what you think is "infringement" and obviously bad turns out to be anything but that. Which is they point some of us have been making for years.

Re:

people dont have to sit through adverts. it isn't a legal obligation. most times when people want to make a coffee or go for a pee, it happens when the adverts are on, not when the program or film is on. further, just because people have the option of skipping the adverts, doesn't mean they always do. it doesn't mean that the adverts are not there. so, regardless of whether they are watched or not, payment is still made for having the adverts included.

Re: Re:

Your analogy is not quite finished.
With the private right to action...let's pretend the flea marketeers all used credit cards instead of hard cash. With just one complaint to the payment processors, they lose the ability to make an income. Now suddenly, they're unable to sell their goods. Said goods can now only be obtained brand new from the original manufacturers. Thus, we have arrived at the classic monopoly situation, but much worse than that, it is now just one small step from having the words "It is illegal to be in competition with the big corporations" rubber stamped in to law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It would be, I suppose, unless I actually opened up my head, removed the idea, and then GAVE it to you! Ah HA! No more stealing! I'm gifting you my idea!

(And thus, fair children, was the Emmy nominated series "Dancing With Your Pets In Your Underwear" picked up for syndication on USA. It was thus also how Dark Helmet died trying to give physically his idea to another person so as to avoid thought stealing. Let it be a lesson to all: if you think thoughts can be stolen, you're probably going to end up killing yourself. Amen.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That said, if the Association of Staffing Agencies or whatever came out and tried to outlaw Kaseya Software just because their business was threatened by how we use the technology, they'd be laughed out of every congressional district in the nation.

If they did it with LabTech instead of Kaseya then they'd probably be applauded by a bunch of MSPs.

i hate to say it but i am pretty sure the new bill will pass. that is gonna do exactly what the entertainment industries want now and also achieve what they didn't back then. i still say it will be a good thing, simply because after it happens and everything goes to rat shit, the cost to the rest of the country will be enormous. the cost of trying to mend all that gets broken will be even greater, if it can be mended at all! unfortunately, it is going to take this monumental fuck up before those in power see the error of their ways.

Re:

It's funny, but when i PAY money to watch TV, i don't feel obligated to further supplement their earnings by watching commercials.

Personally there are only ever a few shows out that i'd be watching on a regular basis. I can buy the box sets brand new for a lot less than it would cost me to watch them on cable. Not only that but there are NO commercials. So basically, it's cheaper to stamp them onto a DVD and ship physical copies all over the country than it is to transmit them over a wire, and that's without counting the money they make from commercials.

Yea, i have no sympathy for the cable cos having to restructure their commercial programming...

Re: Re: Re:

the advertisements are the part of the deal you make in order to get the free content.

No, the advertisements are part of the deal that the advertisers made, in order to get the product name out to as many humans as possible.

And, I don't need to tell you, it has nothing whatsoever to do with consumers getting the content without paying. For one thing, companies advertise in stuff that is not free, all the time (e.g. magazines). The "ad supported" model is a business model that the content distributors choose - and nobody else. No "deals" were made.

Add to that, the fact that consumers who used TiVo's were already paying to watch the content (it didn't record free over-the-air TV, since at the time it wasn't digital).

Also consider that skipping ads has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with copyright infringement, so wouldn't have been even considered during the Sony trial.

Add it all up, and you have one massive dose of fail.

Besides - are you honestly suggesting that Hollywood should have been able to shut TiVo down? Because if you are, you are exactly against new technology and/or consumers.

And if you think that Sony should have gone the other way, then you're also against movie studios making money. There is no question whatsoever that the VCR helped studios far, far more than it hurt them - and that includes the VCR's progeny (DVR's and what have you). It is better for the studios that they exist, just as they are now, than if they did not.

After listing all the devices and technologies that we wouldn't have, think about the industries and jobs built around those technologies that we wouldn't have. Think about what life would be like without even one of those items listed much less all of them. Then ask yourself, do we really think the new law will be beneficial to anyone at all, even the gatekeepers? Even more importantly, do we really want the gatekeepers determining what we can and cannot have as a society?

Re: Re: Re:

But isn't the purpose of copyright law to progress the useful arts? Surely you aren't arguing that hasn't been done? There is more content available in more formats and more widespread distribution than at any time in the history of man and probably many alien nations. Not only that, those industries are doing better financially than at any other time. Don't you think there might be some correlation here? Just maybe if we make things even more widely available than they are today the market will get even bigger still?

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

I know this is old already in today's net but here goes:

Look at your comment, now back to mine. Now back at your comment now back to mine. Sadly it isnít mine, but if you stopped babbling and started posting thoughtful comments it could look like mine. Look down, back up, where are you? Youíre scrolling through comments, writing the comment your comment could look like. What did you post? Back at mine, itís a reply saying something intelligently. Look again the reply is now rated funny. Anything is possible when you think before you post.

Curiously enough, movie trailers and previews today still use the line "only in theaters" as if it's still true. It is not. Anyone who understands the reality of today's technology knows that such films are most definitely not just "only in theaters" but often found online before they even begin showing at the theaters. Originally leaked, more often than not, by industry insiders. Pretending what is reality is not is merely self-imposed ignorance. A most irrational behavior, yet not unexpected when observing those who oppose technological progress and freedom of expression.

Re: Re: Re:

Here is a novel idea, make ads that people actually enjoy watching like Old Spice did. Forcing people to sit through boring ads never has worked. They just hit the fridge or bathroom or pick up their conversation with whoever they are watching the show with until it comes back on.

I don't remember who said it, but half of all advertising is wasted. The only problem is knowing which half. So advertising used to be like using a shotgun, you point and shoot and hope to hit something. Now with the information gleaned it is getting more like using a rifle where you can target your audience.

Re: Re:

Mike, I have seen those studies, and they may or may not be entirely true (it is sort of hard to measure, considering it is a constantly moving target).

My point only is that, at the time the VCR decision was made, if the courts could see and understand the piracy issues that were about to explode, they might have come to a different decision, or perhaps more narrowly focused their decision in a manner that didn't give license to all that has come after it.

Clearly those who pirate TV shows (and happily lop the commercial out of their files) are pretty much solving the issue you point out above. Those users clearly won't be recalling any commercials, because they will not have seen any.

Valenti's metaphor

I've always thought the VCR metaphor was completely wrong, but then I finally thought to read about the Boston Strangler, and now it occurs to me that Mr. Valenti's metaphor is actually astonishingly apt. The Boston Strangler killed 13 women between 1962 and 1964, when the population of Boston was nearly 700,000. So the VCR was to the American film producer (at least) as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone: paranoid and certain of a horrible, messy death because of alarmist, baseless news stories, and yet in truth is, statistically at least, perfectly safe in her own home.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

WHen you pay your $107 a month (foolishly) you are paying for (a) premium channels not available over the air, and (b) clear reception of those that do come over the air.

You could use rabbit ears or another antenna to receive local over the air channels, and pay nothing. Your choice to pay more to your cable company for extras beyond what is over the air is your choice, but doesn't chance the equation.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Statements like
"The VCR itself didn't lead to massive infringement"
Just fly in the face of logic, and I believe couldnt have been made honestly. Also statements like:
because there is clearly harm done - Really? I could not find anything to back up this statement.

Even after users point out we pay for cable, he/she still insists we are getting something for free.

See:
Rich, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:32am

Yeah, but TV is no longer free. I pay $100 for cable. I shouldn't have to sit through ads!
---
Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:40am

Turn on your TV. That is the free content you are getting with these ads.

So just because he is "well spoken" or "civil" does not mean he is not just trolling, and should not be called out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

In my area the OTA signal is better than the compressed and sometimes distorted signal that comcrap sends out. One month of what you pay for cable will buy a good antenna. So you probably should take that out of the equation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"but doesn't chance the equation."

Actually it does. They pay for the content, it doesn't need to get payed for twice.

I don't know how many people here would agree, but I'd pay the $140/m for cable (Verizon FiOs technically) if it didn't have commercials. And that's saying something since I only pay $7.99 for Netflix that does the same thing (just a little slower).

Re: Re: Re:

So you want to use IP, which is supposed to advance (technological and other) progress, and use it to stifle progress?

The purpose of IP is to advance progress, not merely to prevent your definition of the word 'harm' done by violating someones IP privileges. It's purpose is to advance social benefit, not to minimize this alleged 'harm' caused to IP holders. Stifling innovation would have harmed the consumers. Our current overreaching IP laws harm consumers. The only harm being done here occurs when the government-industrial complex steals from the public domain through retroactive extensions and through insane copy protection lengths. There is no public harm being done and any 'harm' caused to IP holders shouldn't be the primary focus of IP since these privileges aren't something that IP holders are rightfully entitled to. These laws should exist for the public good, not for the sole benefit of IP holders. The problem here is that a few IP holders have gotten way too spoiled over the years and we need to put an end to that.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It was a close one, I'll admit. But it's a good thing that one of the Supremes was a Computer Scientist based on the fact that he understood technology far better than anyone else. My response above shows how a Supreme Court Judge allowed Fair Use to win the day.

Re: I'd like to commission an editorial cartoon

Re: Re: Re:

"My point only is that, at the time the VCR decision was made, if the courts could see and understand the piracy issues that were about to explode, they might have come to a different decision, or perhaps more narrowly focused their decision in a manner that didn't give license to all that has come after it."

Sure, fine. Lets say the courts looked into the future and decided the slope was too slippery. Then lets also say the media companies got to look into the future and see the decades of super-massive profit from the home movie market. The media companies drop the suit before the courts rule against VCRs and we are in the same place we are now.

Re: Re: Re:

"Clearly those who pirate TV shows (and happily lop the commercial out of their files) are pretty much solving the issue you point out above. Those users clearly won't be recalling any commercials, because they will not have seen any."

Well I guess the content owners should stop putting stupid time restrictions on their online streams then so people watch the commercials rather than seek out pirate streams.

Re:

> because there is clearly harm done, and
> people are clearly using the technology
> to avoid the parts that pay for the content
> to be created.

I hate to break the news to you, but for most people, a commercial break is equivalent to a bathroom break if they don't have a VCR or a DVR. They get up and do other things-- use the restroom, make a sandwich, fold some laundry, whatever. Either that or they do what I do when I'm in a hotel and can't FFW: I hit the mute button and read a book for a few minutes.

Unless you're also suggesting we outlaw the ability of people to mute their TVs or make it illegal to leave the room during a commercial break, the practical reality is that people are (and always will) "avoid the parts that pay for the content to be created".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sounds like the same tired argument against website popup blockers.

There is no implicit agreement with viewers of the web or TV. If the only way you can think of to make money is with annoying advertising, and that's not working for you, then I'm sure there are plenty of people in line who would love to have your airwaves and find a way to make it profitable.

Re: Re: Re:

"But I will say that the advertisements are the part of the deal you make in order to get the free content. Bypassing them, blocking them, or skipping them to some extent breaks that agreement."

You're focussing on a technology that allows you to skip the ads, but in fact the end result is no different to flipping channels, muting the sound or simply leaving the room. Are all these actions also breaking this so-called agreement that none of us agreed to? Do you really think we need a "solution" to these problems as well?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's a balance. I am not sure that widespread piracy does anything to progress the arts, and in fact something that might have significant impact on the business models of those who in fact seek to progress the arts could actually hurt that goal.

Simply, it isn't a one way street. Wide distribution appears to be good one one side, but has serious consequences on the other. If it kills the business model, have we not all lost something?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, we haven't. We have found a new business model that does what the old one did, transported entertainment/data from a producer to a consumer, but with a different profit vector.

This evolution happens constantly even in industries that don't have the scapegoat of illegal behavior. The entire industrial revolution is an example of this. And, big surprise, we saw the rise of people who hated the machines.

Their plight even birthed Karl Marx's philosophical wellspring, who began working on what would become communism after learning of the working conditions of Britain's lower class. So, in that regard, we're pretty conservative in our response. We created a few misguided laws; they created a whole fucking country.

Re:

> Almost everyone I know uses DVRs in some
> manner, and the most common popular
> feature is the "skip ahead 30 seconds"
> button.

What does that have to do with copyright? Skipping an ad is not a copyright violation and since the Betamax case was an issue of copyright, ad-skipping wouldn't have been considered by the court in a copyright case even if it had been a recognized use for the technology at the time.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

When you pay your $107 a month (foolishly)- I do not have premium channels by choice. In order to get all the kids channels, they break them up, and get this, PBS is tiered. Under Concast it was 130. When my 3.5 year old wants to watch Olivia, Peppa Pig, Wonder Pets, or Team Umizoomi, 107 becomes reasonable. If not for her, I would have cut the cord long ago.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"firestorm" Really? You do realize, and I do believe you are doing it on purpose, language like that is what gets you attacked. What? The firestorm of cash that flew in to their pockets from the VCR? Then DVD sales, and when finally embraced, e-distrubtion will bring. OK AC(patting head lovingly)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Speculation, if the forefathers had known that we will end up in this mess because of copyrights they would never had done it.

Granted monopolies that endure for life + 95 years are not healthy, granted monopolies that give power to stop others from deriving something is not healthy, granted monopolies that give power to people to say how and when people should do or use something is not healthy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So you are saying that people will watch it many times until they get bored? Well if they watch it that much and don't buy the product then it seems nothing would entice them to buy the product. So maybe they just don't want or need the product in which case you are advertising to the wrong people anyway. What do you want, someone to force them to buy like maybe the government?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

OK, but then you'll be paying $200 for cable.

Or cable companies who charge $200 would go out of business because they overvalued their product. I suspect that in a couple years, given the false inflation within the cable companies, the price will be $200 and there will still be commercials, even though the price of the product will be slightly less than it is now. Cable companies don't understand now why their customers are cutting the cable...

What kills me is that customers are cutting the cable, so instead of the companies going "Jeesh, what are we doing wrong...oh, maybe it is because the alternatives are far cheaper and our price is too high, what do we do to fix that," they are pushing for laws to outlaw their competitors and force their customer to pay higher costs (and playing stupid games like restricting alacarte pricing, etc.)

I watch 4 channels on cable. Why should I pay for ESPN when I never watch ESPN? Make ESPN a special package and charge more for it. Allow me to buy the channels I want. At this point, if History, Discovery, and NatGeo were available through some other system, I'd cut the cable too.

Re:

What you state is not 100% true. I know enough people that will enjoy a show to the point where they watch the live broadcast rather than wait till it has aired and then pass through the commercials. If creators can make content drawing enough people will do as they normally did and get up for the bathroom and snacks during the commercial breaks like they were originally intended.

Re: Re: You've uncovered 'The Brain's' plan (don't tell Pinky)

Obviously you've uncovered the real intended purpose of all the camera's being attached to TV's these days (Kinect, etc).

Once all TV's have a camera allowing the TV to watch the customer, commercials will pause when nobody is watching... Get up to go to the bathroom, the commercial will pause until you return and then resume your programming....

Decide to pull out a book during the commercial... TV detects eyes not directed at it and pauses the commercial until the viewer is looking back at the TV...

Of course this will be sold as a 'benefit' for the customer... Don't you hate when you have to get up and go to the bathroom in the middle of a show? New TViewU (patent pending) will pause the show until you return. Ever glanced away for a minute and missed that important part of the show.... TViewU will pause whenever it detects that the eyes in the room are not directed at it's programming.

TViewU... by Big Brother, next time you're watching TV, just remember we're watching you ;)

Total Sarcasm, but anyone using this idea must license it from me for only $1 (per viewer, per eye, per month) or a one time licensing fee of only 1 Bazillion dollars....

Well

So they're going to cut off funding for DVD systems? that includes manufacture of players AND original discs.

Because an Original DVD can be used to burn multiple copies of a movie (and a DVD player can be used to playback such movies or heavens-forbid to play an original disc to a large number of people), therefore under e-parasite its an item that 'aids' infringement.

Far safer to just have a movie shown ONCE in theatres and then locked away safely (in a safe) forever........

Re: The Giant Anonymous Coward

And there he is. The idiotic industry shill that never uses his real name and parrots the MPAA party line.

Give it up. Its clear you work for either the recording or movie industry. No real person could possible swallow all the garbage that the content industry spews out.

Look, I depend on the internet for my job. The crap they movie and record industry wants to do will jeopardize the stability of the internet. They're claiming that their profits are more important that the stability of an industry that DWARFS them in size.

Re: Re:

It occurs to me that the modern contest distribution business is like the Titanic. They didn't see the Internet iceberg until it was too late, and now that they have they are so bloated with entrenched interests, contracts, and committees that they can't steer the ship quickly enough to avoid it even if they wanted to.

Hm, if the Titanic had kept forward power while turning it might have missed the iceberg. Reversing to slow down while turning made it worse. Maybe the same thing applies to your analogy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"If it kills the business model, have we not all lost something?"

No. Just those that benefit from a government granted business model. No one is entitled to a government granted business model.

If the government pays me money to simply dig a whole and fill it back up over and over for no good reason and suddenly they decide to stop, have we not all lost something now that I have lost my business model?

Not all business models ought to be protected. Not all business models ought to exist. It's not the governments job to provide you with your easy business model through bad laws that everyone else must pay for. It's your job to find your own business model in a free market.

Re: Re: Re:

My point only is that, at the time the VCR decision was made, if the courts could see and understand the piracy issues that were about to explode, they might have come to a different decision

Well then, thank goodness they didn't. Because if they had, consumers would have been screwed, and the movie studios would have lost a huge amount of money - like, 50% (or more) of every single dollar they've earned since the Sony ruling.

The Sony ruling benefited everyone, but it benefited the Hollywood studios more than anyone else. Let's not forget this.

If you're arguing that "piracy" issues shouldn't dictate legal decisions, then you're making a pretty good argument. If you're arguing otherwise, then you're failing.

Re:

So... you're saying that you would want to willingly give up the video, DVD, DVR, streaming and download markets because some people pirate over the internet? Because the industry is no longer predicated on theatrical releases and they lack the control the studio system once had? OMG! People no longer use their TVs in the same way as they did in the 50s! Disaster!

I really, really hope you';re not actually part of this industry. If you are, you're a moron who's apparently willing to give up massive profits on some misguided "moral" crusade.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Here is a idea from the UK All tv and radio channels stream live on line.
most provide some kind of catch up on line BBC iplayer for example.
why has this not got to the USA yet or are the MAFiAA holding you guys back.
cable is so old hat (unless you use virgin internet ).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nobody is claiming a right to profit (that is twisting things pretty hard), they are claiming only the rights to what is theirs, and the rights to control it as granted by the constitution (which includes the provisions for copyright). Are you suggesting that only some rights are rights, the rest are just ideas, or some bogus claims?

Re:

why has this not got to the USA yet because you backwards, slow and it is clear from this web site and mikes comments that there is a large group of people in the US who believes stealing content is a RIGHT...

We've had NET streaming of our Free to air stations for years here in Australia. If you miss a program that you wanted to watch, you just get on the web and watch it there !!

Get with the times USA !!!!

You know here in Australia, we are a demographic population, quite often new release movies will be released here in Aus before released in the States to test market appeal of the movie.

So quite often we get the latest movies well before the US even knows about them, or before it is released in the US.

Comcast inks a deal with content owners to provide said content on its network. Comcast then recoups that cost by charging me a monthly fee.

There is no free now matter how hard you want it to be.

If you're looking at this as only an over the air discussion then fine you'd be correct 20 years ago, but that's not how it is today, sorry. The content is paid for. Many times over as it turns out.

I can watch HBO series and get no commercials. I can listen to my Sirius radio and get no commercials. Somehow they all survive. Shocking.

Look, people hate change as a general rule especially when it threatens a comfortable existence. Business is no different. The MPAA and their members need to compete and evolve. Arguing now that the VCR decision was wrong, please, the motion picture industry would be nowhere they are now without the home rental market they so feared and then wildly profited off of.

Why did there need to be subsidy paid to the recording and motion picture business on blank media...just in case it was used for piracy? Remember they wanted the same of hard disk drives? Seriously. The industry can survive. It can be as popular and profitable as ever, but it has to learn to evolve, and it doesn't want to.

I personally have no stomach for regulation being created to buoy an industry that refuses to innovate and evolve. Just like the buggy whip industry. Evolve or die. That's how this works. There is no entitlement to profit or survival as a business. You earn it. Artists get that. The MPAA companies and RIAA companies don't. Simple as that.

Re: Re: Re:

AC: "I think that seeing [people using DVRs to skip commercials] alone, the courts would have likely ruled the other way, because there is clearly harm done, and people are clearly using the technology to avoid the parts that pay for the content to be created."

rubberpants: "Are you suggesting that if a new technology changes they way an existing business must operate to be successful that it is inherently wrong and should be made illegal?"

AC: "No, but I think that if the courts had realizes that there would be so many infringing uses based on their judgement at the time, they likely would have ruled the other way."

Please, try to make a consistent argument. You look like a fool. First it's the courts would ruled the other way "because there is clearly harm done" by using DVR skip technology, and then when rubberpants calls you on it, you say "if the courts had realizes that there would be so many infringing uses" they would have ruled the other way.

So either you can't make up your mind, or you think the DVR skip feature is an infringing use. The latter being laughable at a minimum. Next you'll be telling us that the courts would have made horseless carriages illegal if they had known there would be "clearly harm done" to the horse and buggy makers.

Come back when you're not whining about the world simply changing. Time moves on. The old way is inefficient, and is replaced by newer better ones. And since I'm an old fart, get off of my lawn.